Thread: Moral discussion: Why do you eat animals?

Originally Posted by tommo

Because I was following on from their reasoning; I am explaining their reasoning to them, in a different way. So that they
understand what they're saying.


It makes sense. But it doesn't relate really to what I was saying.
"So, what you have said about vegetarians wanting to "protect" these animals does not capture the entire scope of the situation."
That ^ doesn't really follow from what you said before it.

Your argument may be that you want animals to be able to experience more pleasure, heightened pleasure.
But these animals would not exist without us having domesticated them, or if we stop eating them and they therefore cease to exist again.

Well what you're saying is not much different from those "potential life" arguments used against contraceptive methods and abortions. Not creating something is not the same as killing something. You're painting the picture as if global vegetarianism would cause some sort of mass genocide, when what would actually happen is that farm animals' births would decrease.

You also speak as if "humane" farming was the norm or sustainable for feeding the entire population, but I don't think that's the case.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Well what you're saying is not much different from those "potential life" arguments used against contraceptive methods and abortions. Not creating something is not the same as killing something. You're painting the picture as if global vegetarianism would cause some sort of mass genocide, when what would actually happen is that farm animals' births would decrease.

You also speak as if "humane" farming was the norm or sustainable for feeding the entire population, but I don't think that's the case.

To be fair, in a Capitalistic market, the farmers aren't going to wait for the cows to die of natural causes. That would cause immense profit loss. But this is assuming a massive unanimous shift to vegetarianism. If it were a gradual process spanning a couple generations, then farmers would have time to adjust the birth rate. There would still be animals killed to reduce supply, but not nearly as many.

Originally Posted by tommo

Well, I wasn't actually. It doesn't matter how quick it happens. Even though I specified "over time".
The point is, most of the animals would not exist that the vegetarians are trying to protect.

Just to be clear, I already know this is faulty reasoning, but it follows from the standpoint most vegetarians have on the issue, and I
want to see if they can counteract the point.

If it happens over time what's bad about it? Are you sad that there aren't slaves any more(I realize this is a bad metaphor, especially with you being from Australia, but I drank one of these earlier and am extroidinarily lazy right now).

I dunno, I think your argument would only make sense if someone valued domesticated animals over wild animals. I don't, I value them less.

Originally Posted by Mario92

To be fair, in a Capitalistic market, the farmers aren't going to wait for the cows to die of natural causes. That would cause immense profit loss. But this is assuming a massive unanimous shift to vegetarianism. If it were a gradual process spanning a couple generations, then farmers would have time to adjust the birth rate. There would still be animals killed to reduce supply, but not nearly as many.

No ones asking them to do that, it would be silly. People just want them to be treated with respect and dignity, as life not a commodity.

If we didn't have such a disconected repressed culture with a "free market" that really isn't one this would happen anyway. It's natural to be compassionate, people just don't understand what goes into making their food.

Originally Posted by tommo

Because I was following on from their reasoning; I am explaining their reasoning to them, in a different way. So that they
understand what they're saying.


It makes sense. But it doesn't relate really to what I was saying.
"So, what you have said about vegetarians wanting to "protect" these animals does not capture the entire scope of the situation."
That ^ doesn't really follow from what you said before it.

Your argument may be that you want animals to be able to experience more pleasure, heightened pleasure.
But these animals would not exist without us having domesticated them, or if we stop eating them and they therefore cease to exist again.

I guess the point I've been beating around is that you are bringing up one of the few problematic, eccentric corners of utilitarianism. In my opinion, any moral system that thinks it can prescribe action for every possible situation will have flaws. Utilitarianism is a popular one and it is normally very stable but when you start talking like this, the flaws of taking it to the extreme start to show. I don't think that creating life for the pleasure it will experience during it's time is the right thing to do, because of logical conclusions such as overpopulation.

If I take the position that people should not harm animals, it does not follow from this that people should give animals pleasure.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I guess the point I've been beating around is that you are bringing up one of the few problematic, eccentric corners of utilitarianism. In my opinion, any moral system that thinks it can prescribe action for every possible situation will have flaws. Utilitarianism is a popular one and it is normally very stable but when you start talking like this, the flaws of taking it to the extreme start to show. I don't think that creating life for the pleasure it will experience during it's time is the right thing to do, because of logical conclusions such as overpopulation.

If I take the position that people should not harm animals, it does not follow from this that people should give animals pleasure.

Or create animals solely for them to experience pleasure. I agree.
But some people seem to be saying exactly that.

Maybe I haven't stated my argument clearly enough, or people like stonedape and scatterbrain haven't read my post properly, since they still think I believe what I'm saying. When I clearly stated multiple times that I'm simply explaining and expanding from others arguments. I don't think many people understand that one can explore something without agreeing with it.

Oh well.

Originally Posted by stonedape

So, would I be wrong in saying that the only argument the meat eaters have that isn't full of holes is "meat tastes good therefore I eat it?"

I'm not trying to argue anything. Honestly, I tip my hat to anyone who can force themselves only to eat greens. That's great. But I couldn't do it. I like the way meat tastes. Is there really an argument to be had there?

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah, their leader's new yacht. I suppose you could call that "good".
(No).

You're wrong.
We live in a perfect world, where everyone is honest and friendly. Rainbows fly out of our asses at random times, and everyone procreates in massive love orgies that span for miles.
PETA wouldn't waste my money.

*sinks into a corner*

Originally Posted by celestialelixir

I'm not trying to argue anything. Honestly, I tip my hat to anyone who can force themselves only to eat greens. That's great. But I couldn't do it. I like the way meat tastes. Is there really an argument to be had there?

My comment was really more directed at Mario who actually admitted this was his reasoning after trying to pose other [counter]-arguments, and I meant counter-argument. But at the same time there is an argument to be made.

I enjoy not working, does that make it ok for me to have slaves? Clearly it doesn't, my preferences have nothing to do with what is right and wrong(except in some cases, like where I am the victim).

So is it right to keep animals locked in cages and use them as a food source, just because you like the taste of meat? It seems to me the answer is no. What's being talked about here is whether or not this is moral, hence the thread title.

The argument that I've made is that it is immoral and unnethical to cause unneccesary suffering. This includes animals because animals also suffer.

You can still do what you want, but that doesn't mean that it's moral, ethical, or ideal. People send their kids to public school every day, which is about as bad in the end.

Originally Posted by tommo

Or create animals solely for them to experience pleasure. I agree.
But some people seem to be saying exactly that.

Maybe I haven't stated my argument clearly enough, or people like stonedape and scatterbrain haven't read my post properly, since they still think I believe what I'm saying. When I clearly stated multiple times that I'm simply explaining and expanding from others arguments. I don't think many people understand that one can explore something without agreeing with it.

Oh well.

Yeah, I skimmed your first post so I was thinking you believed that. Some vegetarians are morons. I used to date a girl who "was a vegetarian" expcept when she felt like eating chicken at taco bell.

Originally Posted by sloth

I like to hope that they actually do help animals, so I gave them money. There has to be some good that came of it...
...right?

You would probably be beter off giving your money to the ASPCA.

=================================================

.

Joy

Suffering

Also, I once tried a vegetarian diet and I was only going to do it for a week or two to see if there was any personal benefit which people claim. I didn't get any, but I did fart constantly and have diarrhea. Stopped before the end of the second day. Don't know if that would wear off or not though.

It would, so long as you were eating properly, getting enough protein etc.

You also have to do it longer than that to get the full benifit, but I think after even just 2 days you would feel different, at least I did. I go vegan for a day or a week or whatever and I notice a major difference.

Originally Posted by tommo

I didn't get any, but I did fart constantly and have diarrhea.

I got that too during the first 2 weeks or so, it passed.

I'm not a vegetarian anymore though. Or, I am but I'm not all anal about it.

Hahaha, imagine if you literally farted constantly, maybe I'm just still high from last night.

Originally Posted by tommo

Also, I once tried a vegetarian diet and I was only going to do it for a week or two to see if there was any personal benefit which people claim. I didn't get any, but I did fart constantly and have diarrhea. Stopped before the end of the second day. Don't know if that would wear off or not though.

Any drastic and sudden change in your diet will have the same effect. This had nothing to do with not eating meat.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I got that too during the first 2 weeks or so, it passed.

I'm not a vegetarian anymore though. Or, I am but I'm not all anal about it.

Yes, you already mentioned that that only lasted for the first 2 weeks.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Hahaha, imagine if you literally farted constantly, maybe I'm just still high from last night.

HAHA, well it was close enough. Like every 5 seconds or something lol Maybe I'm just still drunk and have an afterglow high from last night.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Any drastic and sudden change in your diet will have the same effect. This had nothing to do with not eating meat.

Yeah, I know. But it's not like I eat meat regularly anyway. Only every few days, and I usually wouldn't have eaten it during the days I only ate vegetables anyway.
Maybe I should have eaten something with less water or something. Crackers maybe. Oh well, I'll try it again soon.

I watched 'Food Inc.' a few days ago and it reminded me of this thread. Shit.

For me personally, I am acutely aware of the benifts and why vegetarians (real ones) do what they do. My problem is all the hormones they use on the animals because it is disgusting and people get addicted to these sometimes unknowingly and can bring health risks. Its also important to consider that the human large intestine is very long which makes it take a longer period of time to process it completely. I havent been able to give it up, but I have limited it to a few times a week only (because of the above reasons).

A few weeks ago I did a diet experiment where I did not eat meat and cut down on the amount of food intake (I was sure to have meals that gave me what I needed though) The first two days were difficult, but after that I was able to be perfectly fine and eat 1-2 meals a day with no meat. The results were quite astonishing, I had never felt so healthy in my life- my mind was so clear and my bowel movements were improved considerably, also I found that most "allergic" symptoms I had faded considerably (even though I dont have allergies according to tests doctors have given me) it was great. I wish I could have gone cold turkey on it and became vegan, but heres something to consider. At least as the US is concerned, it is VERY difficult to be vegetarian/vegan- most of americas diet is soley based on the 4 food groups, meat, dairy, grain and chocolate(Sarcasm). In my case, I still eat meat because im a college student in a family of carnivores who grill large amounts of meat (even during my diet experiment) also, I realized that I will go vegan after I have traveled the world and had their food. Now, if I lived in India or Japan being vegetarian would be really easy- their no meat food is high quality and sooooo good!

-Evan

I eat animals cuz i'm hungry.

I eat animals because they taste good.

I require food to sustain myself. While I don't have anything against vegetarians of any kind ( although I ridicule them time to time, I am civilized about it), I don't see any reason why I should limit my eating. I know there are many flaws in the way animals are taken care before butchering and during the process itself, but that is not enough for me to stop eating meat.

We can live healthy lives without resorting to eating the flesh of animals. Notice the arguments coming from the meat-eaters side consist mainly of "it tastes good" which is a lazy version of Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I realize that discussions about the morality of eating animals only strengthens the meat-eaters conviction, but honestly there is no adequate justification for perpetuating the deaths of sentient creatures just to appease your taste buds.

I eat animals because it is instinctual. Survival of the fittest, rise above all else.

And they taste pretty damn good.

sure are lots of one-post zero-argument appearances that contribute nothing except to say 'feels good, man'...

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

source